SC spikes plea for release of conspirators in Rajiv killing
The SC has rejected the plea for release of four key conspirators in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case who had claimed that the investigation was flawed as the alleged role of tantrik Chandraswami and 21 others were not probed.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected the
plea for release of four key conspirators in the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case who had claimed that the investigation was
flawed as the alleged role of tantrik Chandraswami and 21
others were not probed.
A Bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and Mukundakam Sharma
refused to interfere with the Madras High Court judgement
which had on April 28, 2009, dismissed the petition with a
fine of Rs one lakh on the petitioner E Veluchamy, claiming
to be a Congress worker.
The petitioner sought release of Nalini, Santhan, Murugan
and Arivu on the ground that their conviction was erroneous as
the designated court and the Supreme Court did not consider
the inquiry and findings of the Justice M C Jain Commission
which had recommended further probe into three "crucial
aspects" in the conspiracy.
According to counsel K Karuppan, the Jain Commission had
in its final recommendations submitted on March 7, 1998,
sought further investigations into the alleged role of tantrik
Chandraswami, the suspected involvement of foreign
intelligence agencies like CIA and Mossad, besides the role of
21 other suspects.
The petition submitted that on December 2, 1998, the
Multi Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) under CBI was
constituted and it started its probe on the lines recommended
by the Jain panel.
The argument of the petitioner was that once the Jain
panel had commenced the probe, CBI ought to have informed the
designated court about the same. Similarly, it was claimed
that after the Commission recommended further investigations
into the conspiracy angle, CBI should have informed the
Supreme Court which was hearing the appeal proceedings.
However, it was submitted that the investigating
agency withheld the information from the two courts resulting
in their conviction.
The arguments failed to convince the apex court which
granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw his petition.